Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Quality Resources, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 15-1444 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 15-1444 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1444 _ Quality Resources, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Pfizer, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: November 27, 2016 Filed: November 30, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Quality Resources, Inc., appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Ci
More
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 15-1444
                        ___________________________

                               Quality Resources, Inc.

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

                                      Pfizer, Inc.

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: November 27, 2016
                            Filed: November 30, 2015
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Quality Resources, Inc., appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of its diversity action claiming breach of contract and

      1
       The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
tortious interference with contracts and business expectancies. Upon careful de novo
review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude, for the
reasons explained by the district court, that the complaint failed to state a claim. See
Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 
725 F.3d 927
, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) (de novo
review). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
                        ______________________________




                                          -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer